Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts: Let's talk about The Iliad

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

As an observation on the comment by 6charlong about repeated use of certain phrases it also seems to depend on the translation one has in hand. In the Lattimore translation that I finally settled on goddesses, or at least noble women, are regularly referred to as “of the white arms.” Juno is often described in this way as is Aphrodite and Hektor's wife. Yet when I searched for the phrase “white arms” in the ebook version of the Butler translation it was not to be found.

Ah ha! Excellent! I was wondering if anyone would notice that. Yes, those adjectives or adjectival phrases are a very characteristic feature of Homer, and are called "epithets". Lattimore preserves them all from the Greek; many of the other translations do not. Thus, as you say, women are often "white-armed", Achilles is "swift-footed", Hector is "Hector of the shining helm", Agamemnon is "lord of men", wide-ruling", "powerful", or "shepherd of the people". All Greek heroes, seemingly at random, can be "godlike", "bronze-armoured", or "strong-greaved", while Trojan heroes are "breakers of horses"; the sea can be "wine-dark", or "loud thundering"; ships can be "black" or "hollow" or "swift". Zeus, in particular, has a huge array of epithets: "mighty", "son of Kronos", "cloud-gathering", "loud thundering", "father of gods and men", and many more, while his wife (and sister) Hera, is, perhaps less flatteringly, "cow-eyed".

So, why are they there? We need to understand a little bit about the structure of Greek poetry. Epic poetry is written in what's called "dactylic hexameter". That means that each line is divided into six parts, called "feet", and each foot is a "dactyl". Greek poetry doesn't rhyme, but it has a fixed pattern of long and short syllables. A dactyl can have one of two patterns of syllables: either "long long", or "long short short".

That means that the poet can't put words just anywhere; he needs to choose words that fit into the pattern of long and short syllables that the metre requires. Remember that the Iliad was originally an "oral" poem - each performance of it was unique, with the poet pretty much making up his own unique version as he performed it. Composing dactylic hexameter verse "on the fly" is a pretty spectacular feat, and the epithets are there to help the poet do it.

The way we think it worked is this:

The performer would have a huge array of epithets memorised; some generic, others unique to a particular thing or person. He would say someone's name, and know that he then needed to fill in a certain number of syllables to reach the end of the line, or the place where he wanted to start a new phrase. He would choose an epithet with the syllable pattern that he needed, and slot it in to the verse at that point. This probably took years of training, and the trained rhapsode could do it completely automatically, without having to break his rhythm to think about what fitted the verse.

A secondary reason for the epithets was probably as a way for the audience to recognise their favourite characters in the story. Thus, if you heard the phrase "swift-footed", you'd think "ah - that's Achilles that's being talked about!".

Epithets are a unique feature of oral poetry. When writing was invented, and poets could spend time finding words to fit the metre, rather than having to make it up on the fly, they pretty much disappeared. Thus, you don't find epithets in Virgil's Aeneid, which was composed in writing.

Fun stuff!

Thanks for those insights HarryT. I especially noticed the frequent use of “swift-footed” while so many Trojans were referred to as “breakers of horses” and wonder what was up with that?

Reflecting on earlier comments that the Trojans seem to me much nicer people and more sympathetic characters I agree. Especially after completing book 6. When Hektor's wife tells him of her fears that Hektor will be killed if he returns to the combat and he in turn tells her that he has similar fears, but feels he must to defend the homes and lives of all in Troy it is very touching.

Contrast that with the scene also from Book 6 where Menelaos has captured the Trojan Adrestos in combat and Adrestos begs Menelaos not to kill him but to return him to his father's home in exchange for a great ransom. Menelaos is persuaded to do this but then Agamemnon approaches saying:

“Dear brother, o Menelaos, are you concerned so tenderly with these people? Did you in your house get the best of treatment from the Trojans? (Presumably referring to the abduction of Helen by Paris?) No, let not one of them go free of sudden death and our hands; not the young man child that the mother carries still in her body, not even he, but let all of Ilion's people perish, utterly blotted out and unmourned for.”

Menelaos and Agamemnon then kill Adrestos. The Trojans certainly do seem more sympathetic when they are just fighting to protect their homes and families, including all women and children, while the Achaian's are an all male invading army intent on wiping the entire Trojan people from the face of the Earth. And this for a grievance that has not really been well developed as yet.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

The Trojans certainly do seem more sympathetic when they are just fighting to protect their homes and families, including all women and children, while the Achaian's are an all male invading army intent on wiping the entire Trojan people from the face of the Earth. And this for a grievance that has not really been well developed as yet.

Paris, though, broke what was probably THE cardinal rule of Greek society - "Xenia" - or "guest friendship". The tradition was that you took strangers into your home, gave them gifts, and treated them like one of the family. For Paris to violate the rules of Xenia and abduct his host's wife was an absolutely unforgivable sin. The Greek audience would have had no sympathy whatsoever with the Trojans!

[ctol]

Originally Posted by issybird

I know Achilles gets wounded later in the book. Perhaps his death from a wound to his heel gave rise to the myth?

Issybird you might want to look at this chapter from Quintius Smyrnaeus' The Fall Of Troy. Even though in this account he is shot in the ankle by Apollo instead of Paris as in other accounts, it is possible that this might have given rise to Achilles being killed by being shot in the heel.

When you get a chance you might want to read the entire poem. As far as I know, it is our only extant literary work that gives a connected account of the events of the Trojan War between the death of Hector and the departure of the Greeks for home after they sacked troy.

Many scholars date his writing sometime in the 4th century A.D.

http://omacl.org/Troy/book3.html

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

Also, people are always taking hold of someone's knees when they want something. What's with that anyway?

I see you never saw paparazzi in action.

Now if Zeus is the Big Kahuna how is it Thetis gets away with that? We don't know much about monarchs in America but I can't imagine someone going up to Queen Elizabeth and grabbing hold of her like that to ask for something.

I'll quote Alexander Pope, the translator from the 1700's:

It must be a strange partiality to
antiquity, to think with Madame Dacier, 38 “that those times and manners are so much the more excellent, as they are more contrary to ours.” Who can be so prejudiced in their favour as to magnify the felicity of those ages, when a spirit of revenge and cruelty, joined with the practice of rapine and robbery, reigned through the world: when no mercy was shown but for the sake of lucre; when the greatest princes were put to the sword, and their wives and daughters made slaves and concubines? On the other side, I would not be so delicate as those modern critics, who are shocked at the servile offices and mean employments in which we sometimes see the heroes of Homer engaged. There is a pleasure in taking a view of that simplicity, in opposition to the
luxury of succeeding ages: in beholding monarchs without their guards; princes tending their flocks, and princesses drawing water from the springs. When we read Homer, we ought to reflect that we are reading the most ancient author in the heathen world; and those who consider him in this light, will double their pleasure in the perusal of him.
Let them think they are growing acquainted with nations and people that are now no more; that they are stepping almost three thousand years back into the remotest antiquity, and entertaining themselves with a clear and surprising vision of things nowhere else to be found, the only true mirror of that ancient world. By this means alone their greatest obstacles will vanish; and what usually creates their dislike, will become a satisfaction.

Yep, already back then people were shocked to realize how much more bastardized and inaccessible their rulers had become.

And why does he always say who the guy's father was? How many Zeuses are there anyway? Only one I think. Is he doing it just to make it rhyme? You can't tell from the translation.

Epithets were all the rage back then, specially when refering to gods and important people, otherwise you would sound disrespectful. Plus, there was no surnames back then, so to be clear about someone you either referred where one was born or the father's name. An epithet was surely cooler.

Shoot, I'm only on Book 1. This thing is a pretty wild ride.

No doubt, but loving every second. I actually read the whole book I 2 times. So beautiful in verse...

[6charlong]

Namekuseijin makes a good point. Do leaders lead or merely sit back and command? The contrast between Agamemnon and Zeus, assuming that the gods represent an ideal, is telling.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

Namekuseijin makes a good point. Do leaders lead or merely sit back and command? The contrast between Agamemnon and Zeus, assuming that the gods represent an ideal, is telling.

Ralph Klein, a former long-time, popular and successful premier of the province of Alberta used to say "the secret to political success lies in figuring out where the parade is going, then getting in front of it" (quoted from a John Ibbitson article in the Globe and Mail). I doubt things were all that different 3000 years ago.

[BenG]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

Namekuseijin makes a good point. Do leaders lead or merely sit back and command? The contrast between Agamemnon and Zeus, assuming that the gods represent an ideal, is telling.

Agamemnon was the leader of the war against Troy but he wasn't king over all the Achaians. Many were rulers in there own right.

From Robert Fagles' Introduction:

Finally, we must not entertain the idea that the Greek army is like a modern army, with a clear command structure which automatically makes disobedience to Agamemnon ‘wrong’. Agamemnon is acknowledged as overall leader of the expedition by virtue of the number of troops he brought with him, but as the constant debates make clear, authority is not taken for granted: it is demonstrated by the ability to win an argument and to persuade the rest to acquiesce (whence the requirement for heroes to be effective speakers as well as fighters). Only on Olympus is there an undisputed master who can command automatic obedience – ZEUS – and that, in the end, is down to his sheer physical superiority.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Thanks for those insights HarryT. I especially noticed the frequent use of “swift-footed” while so many Trojans were referred to as “breakers of horses” and wonder what was up with that?

I think my favourite epithet is one of Apollo's: "destroyer of ants". Why or how someone came up with that one, I can't imagine!

Apollo is, to my mind, probably the most interesting of the gods in both the Iliad and the Odyssey. Today, we probably most often associate Apollo with the Sun god, but that was a much later association. The Greek god of the Sun was called "Helios", and in was only in about the 3rd century AD that Apollo "merged" with Helios. In both Homer and in the much later Aeneid, Apollo has nothing whatsoever to do with the Sun.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

What I found surprising, given that I had never read the Iliad before, was where in the timeline of the Trojan war the Iliad begins. The story of the seduction (or kidnapping) of Helen, "The face that launched a thousand ships," is years in the past at Book 1.

Speaking of Book 1 it was sure tough on women back then. When you really look at what was being talked about for the situation of Chryseis and Briseis is both are just spoils of war, goods to be done as pleased with, including raped.

I also found the timeline surprising. It took me awhile to realise they had been in this war nine years. I got to the one point where it mentions nine years and I was like, wait, what, did they just skip nine years into the future?

Yes, it was tough on women back then, but really, it's always been tough on women, even today. Look at how repressive some countries here in 2012 are towards women. While on the other end of the spectrum, the Iliad speaks of the Amazons (wasn't expecting that!) who were fierce independent women warriors even way back in the BCE.

Also, I think that it's arguable whether being a spoil of war (the defeated or captured women) is better or worse than being killed outright (the defeated or captured men). It's not like the defeated women were the only ones who had it bad.

And also, I think their religion was much more pro-woman than the history of most major religions today. Most religions are male-dominated, and while the head honcho was a male named Zeus, there were plenty of women gods in Greek mythology, including as we see in the Iliad ones willing to put on armour and go out and fight in battle. And women could be priestesses and such.

Honestly, I think women had it better in ancient Greece than in many other cultures hundreds or even thousands of years later.

Originally Posted by issybird

...I was bemused by the title, The Rage of Achilles in my edition; I have also seen it rendered as The Wrath of Achilles. "Hissy-fit" would seem more accurate to me. Achilles even goes crying to mom because the bigger boy took his toy away.

Well, yes, but he wasn't the only one throwing a hissy fit. I think it's fair to say that judging by the Iliad it seemed normal going for all kinds of people to throw hissy fits. Agamemnon threw a hissy fit too, whining that it wasn't fair that he had to let his toy go, so he had to take someone else's.

Originally Posted by BenG

One thing that strikes me about The Iliad is that even though it's a Greek epic, the Trojans seem much more likeable than the Greeks.

I would agree and wonder if Homer meant it that way, or if that is a result of our cultural interpretation of it.

It seems to me that really when one thinks about it, they seem about the same in likability, but in the Trojans we're seeing a people making a last stand about to be defeated, and we feel for them.

Originally Posted by 6charlong

Also, people are always taking hold of someone's knees when they want something. What's with that anyway? For example at line 500 Homer has Thetis hitting Zeus up to whack the Greeks for the way they dissed her boy Achilleus:

"She came and sat beside him with her left hand embracing
his knees, but took him underneath the chin with her right hand
and spoke in supplication to lord Zeus son of Kronos..."

Now if Zeus is the Big Kahuna how is it Thetis gets away with that? We don't know much about monarchs in America but I can't imagine someone going up to Queen Elizabeth and grabbing hold of her like that to ask for something.

Well, Thetis was also an immortal though. It wasn't like she was any old human trying to hold Zeus' knees. And the immortals all give off the air of one big dysfunctional family.

Originally Posted by Carmelreader

I can't believe how interesting book 1 is. I have wanted to read this, but I didn't expect to get hooked like I have.

Yep, Book 1 was my favourite so far too. I was actually a bit disappointed once the battle started. First that long list of names that reminded me of the Bible. Then they go into battle and it just sort of often flits from random person to random person telling us who won or lost some random little fight. Some I find interesting, then others tedious. But then it gets back to the story parts with the gods or Paris and Helen and such and it gets better again.

Like, I sort of felt like in Book 1 there was this great moving story, then in Book 2 it just comes to a screeching halt for a while, then when it starts back up it's only inching along, often stuck in the mire of a slow-moving battle. But I feel that as the books pass, it slowly picks up more and more steam so that I felt that by Book 6 (where I am so far) it's gotten pretty good again.

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

As an observation on the comment by 6charlong about repeated use of certain phrases it also seems to depend on the translation one has in hand. In the Lattimore translation that I finally settled on goddesses, or at least noble women, are regularly referred to as “of the white arms.” Juno is often described in this way as is Aphrodite and Hektor's wife. Yet when I searched for the phrase “white arms” in the ebook version of the Butler translation it was not to be found.

OK, I'm reading the same translation as you, but I took white arms to mean something very different. I was thinking of the phrase where white arms means "non-firearm weapons" and since it's used to describe I think Hera and Athene I was taking it to mean they were some battle-ready women!

It would be pretty funny to me after thinking of it that way for six books if he'd just meant they had fair skin on their arms.

I have been struck by how often events are influenced by the immortal gods, whether just providing advice or inspiration to fight. Or even an active role in battle such as preventing harm to those they wish to protect or aiding in injuring or killing the enemy. Yet the behavior and motivation of these gods is often capricious and even child like. When Ares is injured in battle at the end of Book 5 (by Athena) he goes running back to Jove and says:

Very much like on child running to complain to a parent about a sister who is being unfair in games they are playing together.

I do love this about Greek gods (and Hindu gods). I love how human they are. They're not some perfect ideal, they're very flawed.

What I found especially funny about Ares running back to Zeus was that he had already agreed with Athene to not fight in or influence the battle anymore earlier on, yet then he breaks his word, shows up to battle again, and gets mad when Athene helps a human hurt him. These gods really are a riot!

ETA - I do want to say one more thing though about the Ares thing in particular. I think he was also trying to stir up Zeus because Zeus was supposed to be on the Trojans side. From what I got, Athene and Hera were mostly pro-Achaian while Zeus, Ares and Apollo were pro-Troy. But since Zeus wasn't doing anything since he'd given into Hera, I took that particular part as Ares trying to rile him up to help their "side".

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think my favourite epithet is one of Apollo's: "destroyer of ants". Why or how someone came up with that one, I can't imagine!

Apollo is, to my mind, probably the most interesting of the gods in both the Iliad and the Odyssey. Today, we probably most often associate Apollo with the Sun god, but that was a much later association. The Greek god of the Sun was called "Helios", and in was only in about the 3rd century AD that Apollo "merged" with Helios. In both Homer and in the much later Aeneid, Apollo has nothing whatsoever to do with the Sun.

“Destroyer of ants,” that's good. Here is another one that I have just started noticing in Book 7 (probably because you have alerted me to look for them): “single-foot horses.” I can't help but imagine a horse hopping along on a single foot like a Pogo Stick™. I suppose a body of these epithets were built up over time. I can imagine other rhapsodes, on hearing say “breakers of horses” the first time saying to themselves, “Oh that's good. I will have to add that to my repertoire.”

Originally Posted by sun surfer

OK, I'm reading the same translation as you, but I took white arms to mean something very different. I was thinking of the phrase where white arms means "non-firearm weapons" and since it's used to describe I think Hera and Athene I was taking it to mean they were some battle-ready women!

HarryT please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that it does mean no more than that they have very white skin. I know historically across all cultures milky white skin has been considered a mark of high social/economic status for women. No hours toiling in the Sun, nor hard work that would blemish their lovely white arms and hands, for these ladies.

So I may be the only one who whenever I read or write the word Trojans at least from time to time thinks of a certain eponymous product. So I grew curious about if the product name was really originally a reference to the unreachable walls of Troy? It would seem so. Thankfully that name was chosen instead of a possible alternate name of Constantinoples. There, that is out of my system and I promise not to mention it again.

[HarryT]

Yes, "white armed" simply means "fair skinned", which was considered a sign of beauty.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think my favourite epithet is one of Apollo's: "destroyer of ants". Why or how someone came up with that one, I can't imagine!

Apollo is, to my mind, probably the most interesting of the gods in both the Iliad and the Odyssey. Today, we probably most often associate Apollo with the Sun god, but that was a much later association. The Greek god of the Sun was called "Helios", and in was only in about the 3rd century AD that Apollo "merged" with Helios. In both Homer and in the much later Aeneid, Apollo has nothing whatsoever to do with the Sun.

I've never heard the "destroyer of ants" epithet, but I remember that his epithet meaning "destroyer of mice" (Σμινθεύς) had something to do with the healing aspect of Apollo, and mice being carriers of disease.

[HarryT]

I'm sorry, you're right - it's "mice", not "ants". Thanks for the correction!

Originally Posted by Latinandgreek

I've never heard the "destroyer of ants" epithet, but I remember that his epithet meaning "destroyer of mice" (Σμινθεύς) had something to do with the healing aspect of Apollo, and mice being carriers of disease.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, you're right - it's "mice", not "ants". Thanks for the correction!

Still strange choices. I wonder also if the ancient Greeks were really aware that mice/rats were vectors for spreading epidemics? If they really had any idea of the cause of disease or how it spread?

This is related but in Book 1 where Apollo is slaying all the Achaians with his arrows I took that to mean bringing a deadly plague among them. It is actually translated thus among one of the alternate translations other then Lattimore that I read that book. This actually left me wondering what sort of contagious disease would spread first among mules and hounds before spreading to humans? No doubt I am seeking to attach to much literal truth there.